@@Austin-cx2xe Look I m ex Royal Navy and I can tell you that SONAR stands for SOund Navigation And Ranging. It is NOT radar which is RAdio Detaction And Ranging. Sonar is sound, whereas Radar is electromagnetis detection, there is no comparison between them and what they do. Radar is NEVER used for submarine hunting. it may detect a defective submairne that has surfaced, but that is about it.
This is good news for the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm and RAF joint operations for the future. If the MoD and Defence Ministers, plus Admirals and Air Marshalls, grab hold of this with both hands. The RAF already have MQ-9 Reaper drones, if the UK Government place one MQ-9 Reaper Squardon of 9 drones, onboard each of the two Royal Navy Carriers. That is onboard both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, along with two squadrons (18 to 24 aircraft) of F-35B Lighting ll Multi-role Fighters, plus one Anti-Submarine /Surface Vessel Warfare (5 Merlins and 5 Wildcats) helicopter Squardon too. This would be a force multiple for our British Carriers, especially if more new Multi-role MQ-9 Reaper drones were purchased, for the FFA to operate from the two Carriers. With these new FAA Squadrons of MQ-9 Reapers, being upgraded improve marine environment protected, plus equipped with interchangeable sensors and weapon packages. For Maritime Reconnaissance Strike missions, Over Land Reconnaissance Attack / Close Air Suppory missions. As well as both Airbrone Early Warning and Control plus Communication Relay missions, or Electronic Countermeasure Reconnaissance and Suppresion of Enemy Air Defence mission too. Equally Air to Air Refuelling of another Drone mission, could be possible too. Whether MQ-9 could carry enough or a useful load of aviation fuel, to be of use for Air to Air Refuelling of an F-35B is another matter, while being able to take off from an Aircraft Carrier short flight deck too? Though Refuelling another MQ-9 drone, is very possible for a second modiffied MQ-9 drone to do, the transferable fuel required is much less. Nice to see the Royal Navy Carriers, are ahead of the game for once, the Royal Navy did after invent Air Carriers first. The Royal Navy was the first to install armoured flight decks too, plus the Royal Navy were the first to install angled flight deck too. Let alone introduce trapping and arrest wires plus tail hooks aircraft landing on carriers as well. So the British using Multi-role naval drones, as a force multiple. Let alone getting one over, on the US Navy and other Countries Navy's, who operate Carriers too is the best news of all!
An AWAC version could be a great way to cover the RN's weakest link by currently using helicopters for this role. Mind you QE goes into refit in the next 12 months and they could be making changes to configuration of the ship to allow conventional Naval aircraft other nations use, be able to use our ships for the first time since the late 70's
Not sure she is in for refit. Maybe major maintenance? I think the mid life refit is due in 2035 which is when they will decide if EMALS CATOBAR is worth the costs.
@@admiralmallard7500 check the Navy website, she's having her first major refit next year, mainly due to being the lead class ship. A top Navy offical has outlined what the RN want to do while she's in drydock. She's been going since 2017 , so by the end of next year, she will be needing major work. It is also stated back in June that POW is taking over as the fleet flagship while QE undergoes her refit.
Need Reaper versions armed with a couple of AA missiles for self defense. And 2 or 4 Anti - radar missiles.. The drone may be invisible to the radar but the fighter set take out the radar
Unlikely that the Brits who are delaying delivery of F-35Bs, delaying procuring the E-7 and A400 and joining forces with Japan and Italy to produce Tempest/GCAP all of which are due to lack of money, could afford to convert their boats into CATOBARs.
@@AA-xo9uw England struggles to justify spending money on military equipment to the nutters in London (i.e left wing freaks) we like to ponce of the Americans instead. We have the money and if we don’t England are good at robbing it. So either way we could get the money.
I believe that the MoD are also working on how to harness horses to the front of the ship, just to please idiots like you. Can you not see how technology is developing? Cats and Traps will not be needed in the not so distant future.
@@martinharnevie “Commence forth and wreak havoc my little droogs. Show them a bit of the old in-an-outie” 😂 honestly the tech is just getting better so I imagine it won’t be long at all and this stuff will be in effect. The sky net is coming 🤓
I still can’t understand the reasoning behind the QE class carriers having ski ramps and having the least capable of F35 operating from them. I know it was the civil servants in Whitehall that made that decision. Would have made way more sense to have an American style flight deck that would have essentially allowed full interoperability with the US and their airframes. Since the RN invented the aircraft carrier you’d think that would have been the best way. They should have ordered their own awacs like the Hawkeye, mad that they rely on helicopters for that role.
Timing and Cost. Emals weren't a viable option at initial design. And to fit them in 2010 would've prohibitively expensive. Also Hawkeyes costs an arm and a leg
Here is my theory based on no information at all, Emals were not yet developed enough at the time of construction but we knew that the US were working on them for the Gerald Ford class, it seemed silly to pour money into a parallell project for just two or three carriers... Let the US wrap their heads round it, get it right and then copy/buy theirs.. The QE's are claimed to have space to fit them and power to operate them so they can be added at a later date to help spread the cost
Firstly it had nothing to do with 'civil servants in Whitehall'. They were always designed as STOVL carriers right after the first iterations. As others have said in 2010 EMALS and EMCATS catapult systems were assessed. Neither could offer price, delivery let alone performance guarantees. So why would we buy them? We already knew how to fight STOVL carriers successfully so it was a no brainer. Not sure why you call the F-35B "the least capable of F35" given it can operate from anywhere unlike the 'C' and 'A' variants and once airborne its sensor and suppression capabilities are the same. On CSG21 they were going off with 20,000 Ib of weapons in 'Beast Mode'. And remember the QEs can launch initial sorties faster than a Nimitz / Ford carrier (although that is caught up over 24 hours). again on CSG21 they were launching 4 ship sorties with 30 seconds between aircraft. I have to ask why would we want to buy F-35Cs just to fly off US carriers and go through all the risk of EMALS which has crippled the USS Ford's costs? $18 Bn and counting vs a QE @ $5 Bn. We can fly off a US carrier with F-35Bs just as well and the USMC are very impressed with the QEs and interop with us all the time.. Plus the RAF needed a Harrier replacement and as they were jointly operated with the FAA it made sense to do the same with the F-35. But why the need to copy what the Yanks do. They aren't always right. And I think the RN and UK will show these are yet another major step forward in carrier design especially now we have SRVL and Bedford Array.
Just looking at the stats for the TB3 from Baykar's own website it is no where near the aircraft that the Mojave is. It still just uses line of sigh communication for guidance so it has 1/10th the possible range of the Mojave. It also does not carry as much fuel nor can it carry as big a payload. About the only thing it has going for it over the Mojave is the projected price.
@@SCscoutguy The Bayraktar TB3 can be operated from very remote distances thanks to its Line-Of-Sight and Beyond-Line-Of-Sight communications capabilities. It depends on what the customer wants. It has a range of 7000km with 280 playload capacity. It can carry 250km range cruise missiles called kuzgun. By folding its wings, it takes up less space in the hangar. Just as it can take off and land from an aircraft carriers, it can also take off and land from an short-runway LHD ships. Mojave can ONLY operate on aircraft carriers. And in terms of price and performance, 10 TB3s can be purchased instead of 3 Mojaves. Let's see who will win the race.
Hardly. Erdogan and the Turks have proven that they can't be trusted and their support of terrorists - Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Putin, et al - will result in justifiable scorn and aversion.
@@artificialintelligence374 the Mojave drone was originally designed as a stol drone for land based operations carrier based operations ares just a proposition for the drone due to the stol capabilities however carrier based operations is still a concept but general atomics is working with the royal navy to conduct long term trials for carrier based operations and the trial that is shown in the video is merely a proof of concept which proves that yes the drone is able to take off and land on a carrier
20hrs air time, damn. Could have 2 of these on the ship and basically have 24hr rotating coverage
This with a radar would be of immense value.
Yep you have a really good point there something where it could hunt submarines would save billions
@@godsucks6391 That is called sonabouys, and sonar. Radar doesn't have a chance to detect underwater submerged boats. AKA submarines...
Mojave is the combat improved version of the MQ-9. The SeaGuardian MQ-9B is what you want. It can launch sonobuoys and has a massive amount of sensors
@@thetruthhurts7675above 40mhz it’s impossible to penetrate water which is why things like sonar exist
@@Austin-cx2xe Look I m ex Royal Navy and I can tell you that SONAR stands for SOund Navigation And Ranging. It is NOT radar which is RAdio Detaction And Ranging. Sonar is sound, whereas Radar is electromagnetis detection, there is no comparison between them and what they do. Radar is NEVER used for submarine hunting. it may detect a defective submairne that has surfaced, but that is about it.
This is good news for the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm and RAF joint operations for the future.
If the MoD and Defence Ministers, plus Admirals and Air Marshalls, grab hold of this with both hands.
The RAF already have MQ-9 Reaper drones, if the UK Government place one MQ-9 Reaper Squardon of 9 drones, onboard each of the two Royal Navy Carriers.
That is onboard both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, along with two squadrons (18 to 24 aircraft) of F-35B Lighting ll Multi-role Fighters, plus one Anti-Submarine /Surface Vessel Warfare (5 Merlins and 5 Wildcats) helicopter Squardon too.
This would be a force multiple for our British Carriers, especially if more new Multi-role MQ-9 Reaper drones were purchased, for the FFA to operate from the two Carriers.
With these new FAA Squadrons of MQ-9 Reapers, being upgraded improve marine environment protected, plus equipped with interchangeable sensors and weapon packages.
For Maritime Reconnaissance Strike missions, Over Land Reconnaissance Attack / Close Air Suppory missions.
As well as both Airbrone Early Warning and Control plus Communication Relay missions, or Electronic Countermeasure Reconnaissance and Suppresion of Enemy Air Defence mission too.
Equally Air to Air Refuelling of another Drone mission, could be possible too.
Whether MQ-9 could carry enough or a useful load of aviation fuel, to be of use for Air to Air Refuelling of an F-35B is another matter, while being able to take off from an Aircraft Carrier short flight deck too?
Though Refuelling another MQ-9 drone, is very possible for a second modiffied MQ-9 drone to do, the transferable fuel required is much less.
Nice to see the Royal Navy Carriers, are ahead of the game for once, the Royal Navy did after invent Air Carriers first.
The Royal Navy was the first to install armoured flight decks too, plus the Royal Navy were the first to install angled flight deck too.
Let alone introduce trapping and arrest wires plus tail hooks aircraft landing on carriers as well.
So the British using Multi-role naval drones, as a force multiple.
Let alone getting one over, on the US Navy and other Countries Navy's, who operate Carriers too is the best news of all!
Awesome
An AWAC version could be a great way to cover the RN's weakest link by currently using helicopters for this role. Mind you QE goes into refit in the next 12 months and they could be making changes to configuration of the ship to allow conventional Naval aircraft other nations use, be able to use our ships for the first time since the late 70's
Unlikely a refit like that will happen this soon. Perhaps sometime in the future
I'm sure there's adequate coverage over all the deployment areas. It's not 1982 !
Not sure she is in for refit. Maybe major maintenance?
I think the mid life refit is due in 2035 which is when they will decide if EMALS CATOBAR is worth the costs.
@@admiralmallard7500 check the Navy website, she's having her first major refit next year, mainly due to being the lead class ship. A top Navy offical has outlined what the RN want to do while she's in drydock. She's been going since 2017 , so by the end of next year, she will be needing major work. It is also stated back in June that POW is taking over as the fleet flagship while QE undergoes her refit.
@@1chish check around June for articals that are outlining this, with top officals from the RN making statements, rather than heresay.
I hadn't thought of the AEW functionality. Nice.
Need Reaper versions armed with a couple of AA missiles for self defense. And 2 or 4 Anti - radar missiles.. The drone may be invisible to the radar but the fighter set take out the radar
The new, Arnold 1.
How many though are mod going to purchase
Is it possible to take off them silly ugly ramps and build a catapult system in? Or is it impossible now?
Unlikely that the Brits who are delaying delivery of F-35Bs, delaying procuring the E-7 and A400 and joining forces with Japan and Italy to produce Tempest/GCAP all of which are due to lack of money, could afford to convert their boats into CATOBARs.
@@AA-xo9uw England struggles to justify spending money on military equipment to the nutters in London (i.e left wing freaks) we like to ponce of the Americans instead. We have the money and if we don’t England are good at robbing it. So either way we could get the money.
I believe that the MoD are also working on how to harness horses to the front of the ship, just to please idiots like you. Can you not see how technology is developing? Cats and Traps will not be needed in the not so distant future.
@@AA-xo9uwthey may at some point.
It certainly takes the fun out of being a pilot.
Safer
Is 24 hours orbiting a carrier really the fun part?
Future pilots will in some use cases command a task group of drones from their cockpit.
@@martinharnevie “Commence forth and wreak havoc my little droogs. Show them a bit of the old in-an-outie” 😂 honestly the tech is just getting better so I imagine it won’t be long at all and this stuff will be in effect. The sky net is coming 🤓
Glad mod wasted loads on the crowsnest system
Are we buying it.
This is a test aircraft, but yeh were looking into it
It looks cost effective and adds capability ... so most likely not.
I still can’t understand the reasoning behind the QE class carriers having ski ramps and having the least capable of F35 operating from them. I know it was the civil servants in Whitehall that made that decision. Would have made way more sense to have an American style flight deck that would have essentially allowed full interoperability with the US and their airframes. Since the RN invented the aircraft carrier you’d think that would have been the best way. They should have ordered their own awacs like the Hawkeye, mad that they rely on helicopters for that role.
Timing and Cost. Emals weren't a viable option at initial design. And to fit them in 2010 would've prohibitively expensive. Also Hawkeyes costs an arm and a leg
Here is my theory based on no information at all, Emals were not yet developed enough at the time of construction but we knew that the US were working on them for the Gerald Ford class, it seemed silly to pour money into a parallell project for just two or three carriers... Let the US wrap their heads round it, get it right and then copy/buy theirs.. The QE's are claimed to have space to fit them and power to operate them so they can be added at a later date to help spread the cost
@@karlhofmann1446 Spot on mate. Well said.
@@admiralmallard7500 Yep. Someone gets it!
Firstly it had nothing to do with 'civil servants in Whitehall'. They were always designed as STOVL carriers right after the first iterations.
As others have said in 2010 EMALS and EMCATS catapult systems were assessed. Neither could offer price, delivery let alone performance guarantees. So why would we buy them? We already knew how to fight STOVL carriers successfully so it was a no brainer.
Not sure why you call the F-35B "the least capable of F35" given it can operate from anywhere unlike the 'C' and 'A' variants and once airborne its sensor and suppression capabilities are the same. On CSG21 they were going off with 20,000 Ib of weapons in 'Beast Mode'. And remember the QEs can launch initial sorties faster than a Nimitz / Ford carrier (although that is caught up over 24 hours). again on CSG21 they were launching 4 ship sorties with 30 seconds between aircraft.
I have to ask why would we want to buy F-35Cs just to fly off US carriers and go through all the risk of EMALS which has crippled the USS Ford's costs? $18 Bn and counting vs a QE @ $5 Bn. We can fly off a US carrier with F-35Bs just as well and the USMC are very impressed with the QEs and interop with us all the time.. Plus the RAF needed a Harrier replacement and as they were jointly operated with the FAA it made sense to do the same with the F-35.
But why the need to copy what the Yanks do. They aren't always right. And I think the RN and UK will show these are yet another major step forward in carrier design especially now we have SRVL and Bedford Array.
It will lose in the export market against tb3. won't be able to match the price to performance against it.
Just looking at the stats for the TB3 from Baykar's own website it is no where near the aircraft that the Mojave is. It still just uses line of sigh communication for guidance so it has 1/10th the possible range of the Mojave. It also does not carry as much fuel nor can it carry as big a payload. About the only thing it has going for it over the Mojave is the projected price.
TB3 is basically the Poundland version of this.
@@SCscoutguy
The Bayraktar TB3 can be operated from very remote distances thanks to its Line-Of-Sight and Beyond-Line-Of-Sight communications capabilities. It depends on what the customer wants. It has a range of 7000km with 280 playload capacity.
It can carry 250km range cruise missiles called kuzgun.
By folding its wings, it takes up less space in the hangar.
Just as it can take off and land from an aircraft carriers, it can also take off and land from an short-runway LHD ships.
Mojave can ONLY operate on aircraft carriers.
And in terms of price and performance, 10 TB3s can be purchased instead of 3 Mojaves.
Let's see who will win the race.
Hardly. Erdogan and the Turks have proven that they can't be trusted and their support of terrorists - Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Putin, et al - will result in justifiable scorn and aversion.
@@artificialintelligence374 the Mojave drone was originally designed as a stol drone for land based operations carrier based operations ares just a proposition for the drone due to the stol capabilities however carrier based operations is still a concept but general atomics is working with the royal navy to conduct long term trials for carrier based operations and the trial that is shown in the video is merely a proof of concept which proves that yes the drone is able to take off and land on a carrier